Welcome to Petroleum Geology Forums

Difference between current biotoc and abiotic theory of oil formation and me;
regarding abiotic theory people they have sufficient evidence that oil has been generating deep the earth origin and migarting toward crust of earth. it is an ongoing process under the mantle of earth but they have ignored the chemical evidence (very clear and strong evidence ) of biotic origin of oil.we can not ignore it any how. so it conclude us oil is coming from deep origin of earth but biotic in origin without the involvement of fossils of past marine life.
2) according to biotic theory people ,we are getting oil where the fossils of past marine life are buried . most of driller are using this method and we can not this practical and well tested experience . i agree that oil should be there where sediments of this organic material but there is without involvement of fossils my experiments also shows it oil should be there near organic sediments but without any role of fossils.so crude oil is biotic in origin but not a fossil fuel.it also sound us that earth itself is a living organism and producing oil like a bark oil supported by another visual and intelligent evidences.
sureshbansal342@gmail.com

Suresh,
If I understand you right, You think that thermal generation of oil and gas from organic ("fossil") material is not the main process, but that substantial, if not all oil is abiotic?
You are probably aware of the theory of Professor Gold, astrophycisist, who defended this theory, originally put forward by russian geologists.
Typically, the abiotic theory is suggested and defended by people who are quite ignorant of petroleum geology or especially geochemistry. My research, and that of others has shown that there is a very significant correlation between amounts of oil found and the amounts that were generated thermally from identified source rocks. The latter normally are effective when organic carbon content reaches 1.5% or more. Also the fingerprinting by a multitude of geochemical compounds, and isotope analysis tells us that the thermal generation from organic remains is paramount.
Please note that remarkably little oil has been found in basement areas which are drilled nevertheless for minerals. However, somewhat confusing, oil can migrate into wheathered basement, like arkose, thereby suggesting the oil was generated from igneous rocks.
A significant example where the source can be identified easy is the "ichtyol" oil, with fish scales in it, and the fossil fish shales that form the corresponding sourcerock.
I recommend reading:
M.H.Nederlof (1979) "The use of habitat of oil models in exploration prospect appraisal", Proc. 10th World Petroleum Congress, Bucharest 1979, Vol 2, p.13-21
D.Sluyk & M.H.Nederlof (1984) "Worldwide geological experience as a Systematic basis for Prospect Appraisal", AAPG Memoir 35, p.15-26.
M.H.Nederlof (1988) "The Scope for Natural Gas Supplies from Unconventional Sources", Annual Review of Energy, 1988, Vol. 13, p.95-117.
Also the part on the Gaeapas program in http://www.mhnederlof.nl

Suresh,
I think you have a sort of tunnel vision about the abiotic origin of oil. I recommend you to read up on petroleum geochemistry, allowing you to convince yourself that the oil industry would not have been so successful inidentifying and typing oils, gas and corresponding source rocks, if they had followed an abiotic origin hypothesis. The occasional picking up of pollen, some organic compounds on the migration path may occer but is simply a red herring!
Regards,
Rien Nederlof

Nedrolf,
Yes,chances are very high to get oil near sediments even than oil has deep origin without any involvement of OM from surface.because at the time of past seepage heavy crude oil that usually do not move frequently and has been settled near the past seep only and marine life of that time has been Struked in this sticky and waxy material.over the time gap that reservoir has been refilled.
There are two phase of my theory that crude oil has been formed beneath the crust of earth in deep origin of earth without any involvement of fossils or organic matter from surface and coal and gas has been formed with this pre generated past seepage hydrocarbons only that hydrocarbons has been mixed with fossils because these fossils were present at the time of seepage. We are getting nothing near those sediments in which pre generated seepage hydrocarbons has not been mixed.so organic matter is nota raw material of gas and coal but past seepage hydrocarbons only and that seepage hydrocarbons has deep origin only without any involvement of fossils.
Yes, even than I am not in favor of ignore the strong chemical test of its biotic origin. There is no reason that both deep and biotic origin can notbe possible. So there is no need it to manipluate it with abiotic origin while it has deep origin. There is hard need to observe all possibilities why oil has deep as well as biotic origin.
Yes, I agreed we have very strong chemical test evidence that it has biotic origin but it doesn't mean that it is fossil fuel only. We have no evidence that it has fossil fuel inspite of some manipluations only. My theory is totally different from current biotic and abiotic theories.infect. My theory is between the two that oil is biotic in origin but not fossil fuel or another hand oil has deep origin without any involvement of fossil but it is biotic also. For example bark oil has both deep and biotic origin in the log of tree.

According to the so-called "fossil fuel" theory, petroleum is the product of "mature" shale, also called "source rock

according to me; petroleum is not a product of 'mature' shale, also called source rock but these shale/source rock are product of past seepage hydrocarbons that has been mixed with organic matter that was present at the time of seepage. we are getting hydrocarbons only near from those sediments that has been mixed with past seepage hydrocarbons and that seepage hydrocarbons has deep origin without any involvement of fossils.

regs
suresh